Crosmando wrote:No, he's right, I've experienced fleeing an enemy group in BT, but then have them attack me again (strangely enough, Devil Whiskey had this exact same thing, it's interesting how minutely that game went out emulating BT). Though I'm almost certain that enemy groups only "spawn" when you walk on them and trigger the encounter, they don't wander around around in maps before you encounter them.

Was this in BT1 or in the later games? I never saw this in BT1 (where nearly all of my BT playing time has been). Yes, there would be times during which my party would be attacked by the same kind of monster a second time shortly after the first, but the number of monsters was almost always different. I would simply chalk that up to the random number generator.

Creatures definitely weren't "wandering" in any of the BTs (nor DW). Indeed RNG played a part in it, not too much, just about the right amount.
Encounters were tile based: There was a general random number in areas (dungeons), which determined the chance that you would be attacked each step. There were also non-combat tiles and fixed encounter tiles. These fixed ones were either completely fixed (boss fights for example), or just a high (50-100%) chance for a random encounter. After clearing this fight, the % chance would drop back, closer to the normal area-wide percentage (except in the unpatched PC version). The strength and exact composition of enemy groups were determined by a rather complex algorithm. Generally if you left a dungeon, it would basically reset itself.
I think the only person, who could properly describe the exact mechanics, would be Burger Heineman.

ZiN wrote:
Creatures definitely weren't "wandering" in any of the BTs (nor DW).

Right. This is what I remember as well.

ZiN wrote:
Encounters were tile based: There was a general random number in areas (dungeons), which determined the chance that you would be attacked each step.

I think that there were also periodic encounter checks. You could be attacked while sitting on the same tile.

ZiN wrote:
These fixed ones were either completely fixed (boss fights for example), or just a high (50-100%) chance for a random encounter.

Interesting. SOSI and SESI would detect fixed encounters and it was my experience that there would always be a fight when you stepped on them.
There were actually two kinds of special encounters: the fixed composition ones (like boss fights, but also just groups of creatures which were always the same composition every time the dungeon level was reset) and random composition ones.

Examples of the random composition fixed encounters include: most of the room entrances between 1 N and 9 N in Catacombs II; about half of the room entrances between 14 E and 21 E in Sewers III; Cellars, 16 N, 7E - a little before the stairs to Sewers I; etc...

It's not meant as a joke; it means that the name 'Fallout' does not mean "Fallout 2", and does not mean FO3.

So what? Real-time movement was for comfort, to speed up the game .

Of course not. Real time movement [in Fallout] was the regular game, and when a fight erupted, then [suddenly] precise time & sequence was important, and time was then segmented into discrete rounds; indicating a few seconds, and comprised of what each of the combatants could personally accomplish in those few seconds ~each.

During combat the game-world time becomes elapsed time. A ticking bomb that was set ~before combat, could detonate during combat; when enough time [rounds] had elapsed.

... the expiring light spell is not a good example.

I think it's an excellent example ~not the least of which because it proves the point.

Gizmo wrote:It's not meant as a joke; it means that the name 'Fallout' does not mean "Fallout 2", and does not mean FO3.

If you want to avoid misunderstandings and back and forths I suggest you just add a "1" behind that name to distinguish it from the brand/series.

So what? Real-time movement was for comfort, to speed up the game .

Of course not. Real time movement [in Fallout] was the regular game, and when a fight erupted, then [suddenly] precise time & sequence was important, and time was then segmented into discrete rounds; indicating a few seconds, and comprised of what each of the combatants could personally accomplish in those few seconds ~each.

During combat the game-world time becomes elapsed time. A ticking bomb that was set ~before combat, could detonate during combat; when enough time [rounds] had elapsed.

Yes, I know, each round signifies the passing of some time in-game, that was never disputed. And that is a passing of time surely all turn-based players are okay with.

... the expiring light spell is not a good example.

I think it's an excellent example ~not the least of which because it proves the point.

You didn't tell me the solution to your "think back" question so I don't know whether that point proves it.

Gizmo wrote:It's not meant as a joke; it means that the name 'Fallout' does not mean "Fallout 2", and does not mean FO3.

If you want to avoid misunderstandings and back and forths I suggest you just add a "1" behind that name to distinguish it from the brand/series.

I'm okay with that misunderstanding. The people that would confuse "FO3" for "Fallout", are those that only know of FO3.

Gotta agree with adding "1". There's "Fallout" the series, and "Fallout" the first game in the series. Just as we refer to BT1, not "Tales of the Unknown: The Bard's Tale". There's common language, and in the case of Fallout, we can only tell by context which you mean; and if the context is vague enough, you can cause misunderstandings from standing on principle Recommend: "Fallout 1" / FO1 / "Fallout series".

thebruce wrote:Gotta agree with adding "1". There's "Fallout" the series, and "Fallout" the first game in the series. Just as we refer to BT1, not "Tales of the Unknown: The Bard's Tale". There's common language, and in the case of Fallout, we can only tell by context which you mean; and if the context is vague enough, you can cause misunderstandings from standing on principle Recommend: "Fallout 1" / FO1 / "Fallout series".

Following the rest of the discussion...

It's a sore spot because so many ~uninformed, come on to the Fallout forums and use the name Fallout interchangeably with "Fallout 3".

You didn't tell me the solution to your "think back" question so I don't know whether that point proves it.

Then how could you assert it as a bad example, if you knew that you didn't know the difference?

I said, quote: "if you want to convince me that BT had any need for quick reflexes (which is the only thing I really do not want to have in BT4), the expiring light spell is not a good example.".

To further explain: I don't consider the expiring of buff spells or illumination spells as immediate dangers to the survival of your party that would glue me to the keyboard and press keys as fast as a south-korean Starcraft player to get the maximum out of the mana I wasted with that light spell.

I say ~say, "when I play Fallout", "when I play Fallout 2", "when I play Fallout 3", "when I play the Fallout series".

So you want to punish young gamers for the sins of Bethesda? Okaaay, but how about putting a FAQ in your signature where you translate your meaning of often used words to the meaning everyone else understands?

meganothing wrote:I said, quote: "if you want to convince me that BT had any need for quick reflexes (which is the only thing I really do not want to have in BT4), the expiring light spell is not a good example.".

To further explain: I don't consider the expiring of buff spells or illumination spells as immediate dangers to the survival of your party that would glue me to the keyboard and press keys as fast as a south-korean Starcraft player to get the maximum out of the mana I wasted with that light spell.

That was not the point of the post; the point was that outside of combat, the game is realtime.

Gizmo wrote:
That was not the point of the post; the point was that outside of combat, the game is realtime.

And somewhere else I said this is not really disputed. You do notice that no one wants to change that, right? And the reason is that you don't need fast reactions anywhere in that part of the game. And as long as any other part of the game (be it puzzles or even some dreadful lockpick minigame) doesn't violate that rule, I consider it a full turn-based game. Because (to me) real-time movement is a comfort function. Without it many turn-based games would not work.

And that's it: You want to construe a precedence case with the argument that there are real-time elements in BT and other turn-based games (I hope this summarizes it adequately) and I want to define what "turn-based" means and construe an argument based on the essence of turn-based play. Our opinions differ and this exchange definitely won't change that. Because basically this is about what we want from BT4 and not about some unbeatable logic that demands or forbids reaction based puzzles.

Gizmo wrote:I say ~say, "when I play Fallout", "when I play Fallout 2", "when I play Fallout 3", "when I play the Fallout series".

And when we hear "When I play Fallout", we think "Which one?"
So. Crossed lines. Easier to say "Fallout 1" for clarity than have everyone else make a potentially incorrect assumption about your meaning (which someone else may not share).

Gizmo wrote:
That was not the point of the post; the point was that outside of combat, the game is realtime.

And somewhere else I said this is not really disputed. You do notice that no one wants to change that, right

You seem to be trying really hard to emphasize that I am both wrong, and espousing the obvious ~at the same time.

...and then contradicting it all.

And the reason is that you don't need fast reactions anywhere in that part of the game. And as long as any other part of the game (be it puzzles or even some dreadful lockpick minigame) doesn't violate that rule, I consider it a full turn-based game. Because (to me) real-time movement is a comfort function. Without it many turn-based games would not work.

BT1-3 are not turn based, and never were. There is no concept of a turn; and no means to determine sequence. One cannot (as in all turn based games) decide one's choice of action based on what came before and what remains to come after one's ~turn.

BT1-3 are phased based, where the player commits to an intention for each conscious PC, and the actions are shuffled in with those of the opponents, and the engine prints out the melee results. Those results may or may not invalidate any PC's committed intent; thereby voiding their action...IE. there are no turns. In a turn based game, the player sees the state of the game, and makes a choice based on it; but in a phased based game like the BTs and Thunderscape, the PC's chosen target can be dead or gone before the PC ever attacks, and then the PC does nothing. The player has no control of when the character's action happen, or if it happens at all. In no turn based game that I have seen, can the player commit to attack a target that is dead before they act; rather... once it's their turn, they perceive the state of the game, and decide a course of action from it.

And that's it: You want to construe a precedence case with the argument that there are real-time elements in BT and other turn-based games (I hope this summarizes it adequately) and I want to define what "turn-based" means and construe an argument based on the essence of turn-based play. Our opinions differ and this exchange definitely won't change that. Because basically this is about what we want from BT4 and not about some unbeatable logic that demands or forbids reaction based puzzles.

I construe that nothing I've seen in the game would preclude there being timed events, and that includes the timed events I've seen in the game. ; and I further construe... that you (and perhaps others) do not want the option of personal failure for losing to the clock, because you are uncomfortable with that... and not because of any preconceived inappropriateness ~that is not backed up by the existent game mechanics.

Gizmo wrote:BT1-3 are not turn based, and never were ....
BT1-3 are phased based,

[sarcasm]Oh good, instead of discussing the concepts lets delve deep into the details of nomenclature where phase is totally different to turn and really changes everything[/sarcasm]

Phase-based to me (and this wikipedia article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_ro ... s_in_games") is just one sub-type of turn-based game play. I don't see any argument you or I have brought up that would be suddenly invalid or valid if we changed "turn-based" with "phase-based".

... that you (and perhaps others) do not want the option of personal failure for losing to the clock, because you are uncomfortable with that... and not because of any preconceived inappropriateness ~that is not backed up by the existent game mechanics.

Correct. Not only uncomfortable with it, but inadequate to struggle with twitch-based millisecond events. Tend to use my intelligence instead.
I am simply not good at playing real-time games like Starcraft or Fallout3. You on the other hand should try Fallout3, lots of reaction-based challenges .

Gizmo wrote:BT1-3 are not turn based, and never were ....
BT1-3 are phased based,

[sarcasm]Oh good, instead of discussing the concepts lets delve deep into the details of nomenclature where phase is totally different to turn and really changes everything[/sarcasm]

Phase-based to me (and this wikipedia article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_ro ... s_in_games") is just one sub-type of turn-based game play. I don't see any argument you or I have brought up that would be suddenly invalid or valid if we changed "turn-based" with "phase-based".

It matters not, they are decisively different. Imagine Poker done either phase based ~as with BT 1-3, or ~turn based as in... poker, or Fallout.

... that you (and perhaps others) do not want the option of personal failure for losing to the clock, because you are uncomfortable with that... and not because of any preconceived inappropriateness ~that is not backed up by the existent game mechanics.

Correct. Not only uncomfortable with it, but inadequate to struggle with twitch-based millisecond events. Tend to use my intelligence instead.
I am simply not good at playing real-time games like Starcraft or Fallout3. You on the other hand should try Fallout3, lots of reaction-based challenges .

What millisecond events? We've never been talking Grimrock blob puzzles like that iron door ~in BT4, the example was Fallout's nuke and BT2's deathtraps; those were minutes, not milliseconds; and the solution WAS using intelligence in BT2.

Oh, you must have missed the conversation where your evil twin brother Gizmo' was talking with noblesse_oblige and Drool extensively about that iron door . I was talking exclusively about these reaction-based challenges and I thought I made that abundantly clear.

Not that I would like other time-based challenges, but I could live with them.

We would rather that any gameplay mechanics used in BT4 remain where BT1-3 lived, not moving towards explicit real-time gaming. That means, grand passage of time in game (day/night cycle) = ok; realtime combat/puzzles where win/lose outcomes are decided upon by choices you are forced to make (meaning incorrect choice or lack of choice = lose) within short time frames = not ok.